The following is a list of a few of the many cases defended by Attorney William Moore. For additional information regarding any of the following matters, please contact The Law Offices Of William Moore. Please note that in order to preserve the privacy of our clients, the actual names of all individuals have been omitted.

CASE NO. 07-024740MM10A – CHARGES REDUCED.

Defendant demanded a trial on the merits, but the State, believing they would be unable to secure a conviction agreed to break-down the charge.

CASE NO. 0704XAV – CHARGES REDUCED.

After demanding a trial on the merits, feeling that they would be unable to secure a conviction, the State Attorney’s office agreed to break-down the charges.

CASE NO. 8833XCM – CHARGES REDUCED.

The Assistant State Attorney agreed to break-down the charges.

CASE NO.: 08-006878TC10A – NOT GUILTY

The firm’s client was charged with a misdemeanor. The state attorney’s office offered a plea of 30 days in the Broward County jail, which was promptly rejected.

RESULT

A trial on the merits of the case was demanded upon our realization that the charging document filed by the state was, in fact, faulty. Upon resting of the state’s case, these issues were brought to the attention to the judge who promptly rendered a ruling in favor of our client.

CASE NO.: 08-002267MM40A - NOT GUILTY

Our client was charged with possession of marijuana in the amount of 20 grams or less. This client was a police officer who was forced to resign after the allegations were brought by local law enforcement and the state attorneys’ office. An issue that made this case so threatening to our client was the fact that a conviction for such an offense would result in a denial of his pension. Furthermore, any certification to obtain employment as a law enforcement officer would be revoked.

RESULT

Taking an aggressive stance in this matter, the defense pushed forward for trial catching the state attorney off guard and unprepared. Being forced to go forward with very little to no evidence, the state attorney’s office proceeded. A not guilty verdict was obtained.

CASE NO.: 07-002126MM10A – Breakdown to Reckless Driving

Client was pulled over for traveling 95 MPH in a posted 45 MPH zone.

RESULT

Client suffers from a condition that causes him to stutter which may have otherwise led the law enforcement officer to believe he was impaired Believing that the State would be unable to secure a conviction in this matter, a breakdown to reckless driving was offered and accepted by our client.

CASE NO.: 07-010411MM10A – Ultimately Dismissed

Client was arrested for aggravated battery on a law enforcement officer after answering her front door with a shotgun in her hand (police were attempting to ascertain if she was all right after neighbors called).

After a thorough review of the case, the State Attorney declined prosecution.

CASE NO.: 07-006630MM10A – Prosecution Declined

After a thorough review of the case, the State Attorney declined prosecution.

CASE NO.: 07-006630MM10A – Charges not filed

The State Attorney’s office, believing that they did not have enough evidence with which to pursue a conviction, declined pursuing charges against the Firm’s client.

CASE NO.: 07-005850CF10A – Charges not filed

After reviewing evidence available to them, and believing that they would be unable to obtain a conviction, the State Attorney’s office declined pursuing charges against the Firm’s client.

CASE NO.: 07-026977CF10A – Case declined

The State Attorney’s office declined to pursue charges against the Firm’s client upon a review of all evidence and investigative reports believing that a conviction could not be obtained.

CASE NO.: 07-012299CF10A – State declined prosecution

The Firm’s client charged with a 3rd degree felony following being pulled over for careless driving while traveling southbound on Interstate 95. Upon searching suspect’s automobile after obtaining consent, a firearm was found in the glove compartment of the vehicle. Client was arrested for carrying a concealed firearm and careless driving.

Under Florida law a person may carry a firearm in a secured compartment, legally, even if that individual does not hold a concealed firearm’s permit. A concealed compartment can be a glove compartment or even a bag which is not affixed to the automobile.

RESULT

Upon contacting the State Attorney’s Office and making a legal argument prior to filing, the assigned Assistant State Attorney declined prosecution in both the careless driving and carrying a concealed firearm charges and released the firearm to the Defendant. Additionally, the State Attorney’s office agreed to refrain from seeking criminal charges under the careless driving statute.

CASE NO.: 07-008085MM10A - Certain charges dropped

Client was driving his vehicle westbound on Oakland Park Boulevard, where he crossed a break in the median and crashed into 4 automobiles parked along the front row of a business parking lot. City lighting, hedges and yellow billboard poles were also damaged as a result of the crash. Immediately following the accident the client fled on foot from police officers called to the scene. Upon being apprehended, law enforcement officers observed the client with red, glassy eyes, a flushed face and slurred speech.

RESULT

After communication with the State Attorney’s office, the assigned State prosecutor declined prosecuting the firm’s client for fleeing the scene and running from police officers.

CASE NO. 07-014931MM10A – Case dismissed

Client was charged with domestic battery after he allegedly hit his girlfriend while in the home they shared. The instigating factor occurred when the client learned his girlfriend had, in a fit of anger, previously replaced the contents of his shampoo bottle with Nair Hair Removal. All offers made by the State were rejected; client demanded a jury trial on the merits of the case. The State Attorney, upon realizing that he was unlikely to obtain a conviction in the matter, dismissed all charges against the client.

CASE NO. 07-005560CF10A – Charges dropped

Our client was arrested for possession of oxycontin, oxycodone, xanax, crack cocaine, DUI, possession of drug paraphernalia and carrying a concealed weapon.

RESULT

Following an investigation of the case by our law firm, the State voluntarily dismissed all charges with the exception of the possession of drug paraphernalia.

CASE NO. 07-021674MM10A

Client charged with driving under the influence – Charges dismissed

RESULT

After thoroughly investigating the case and preparing all necessary defenses, the State Attorney’s office voluntarily dismissed the DUI charge against our client.

CASE NO. 07-001714MM10A – NOT GUILTY

Strategy – in any case involving such horrible facts against the defense, it is imperative that a jury be selected that may be able to sympathize with the defendant and refrain from rendering a guilty verdict. These juries often apply the true letter of the law holding the state attorney’s office to their extremely high burden of proving the case beyond and to the exclusion of any and all reasonable doubt.

RESULT

At the close of several hours of jury selection, the presiding judge commented that our firm had done an excellent job in choosing defense oriented tryors of fact to sit in judgment. The presiding judge also stated off the record that the state attorney’s office may want to consider breaking down the charge. The suggestion was refused. At the close of all evidence, closing argument was made by William Ryan After deliberating for two hours, a unanimous verdict of not guilty was rendered.

CASE NO.: 06-004815TCA04 - Charges reduced

Defendant was found passed out behind the wheel of his automobile; prior to the police being called on the scene, State witnesses allege that they had seen the Firm’s client operating the vehicle. Upon making contact with the Defendant, officers observed him to be incoherent, and in need of medical treatment. Paramedics were called to the scene.

RESULT

Upon fully investigating the claim and presenting witnesses, the defense established inconsistent evidence that challenged the State’s eyewitness testimony as to the events that occurred on the night of Defendant’s arrest. Confronted with contradictory testimony that Defendant had not been operating the vehicle on the night of his arrest, the Assistant State Attorney agreed to breakdown the charge to reckless driving.

CASE NO.: 06-0048196CF10A - Case dismissed

Co-Defendant charged in Felony Court maintained his innocence to the charges filed by the State Attorney’s Office, and demanded a speedy trial when it became apparent that State witnesses would be unavailable to testify against him after over one year of litigation. Unable to proceed, the State dismissed all counts against the Firm’s client when the Court refused to allow more time for the State to prepare.

RESULT

Dismissal of all felony counts.

CASE NO. 06-01743423MM10A – Not guilty

Client was stopped driving 55 in a 35 mph speed zone.

RESULT

After a short deliberation, jurors returned with a not guilty verdict on all counts.

CASE NO. 06-25795MM10A – States evidence

Client was observed failing to maintain a single lane, weaving across marked roadway lanes. Due to the client residing out of state, a request was made to have this matter special set for trial before a jury, as opposed to being placed on standby.

RESULT

On the day of trial the State Attorney’s Office amended the charge to reckless driving based on the belief they could not succeed in obtaining a conviction with the evidence available to them.

CASE NO. 6155XAE – Case dismissed

Client was in an alleged accident wherein she made an improper turn in front of an oncoming vehicle causing impact. Subsequently client was charged with one count of property damage.

In preparing client’s defense it was determined that certain trees planted by the city in the median of the intersection where the accident took place prevented out client from adequately seeing oncoming traffic. Exhibits were prepared of the intersection for use at trial to establish that the accident was not the fault of the client.

RESULT

On the day of trial the State Attorney’s Office dismissed all charges against our client, believing that they would be unable to obtain a conviction in this matter.

Case No. 0961XAV – Reduced to reckless driving

The Firm’s client was arrested after being found passed out behind the wheel of an automobile at an intersection. On the day of trial the state attorney offered a breakdown of charges to reckless driving due to the fact they believed they would not succeed in obtaining a conviction against the Firm’s client.

RESULT

The Firm’s client was not convicted of original charges.

CASE NO. 489798X – Charges broken down to reckless driving

The Firm’s client was involved in an altercation while leaving a nightclub in Miami Beach, FL. On the day of trial the State Attorney’s Office, believing they would be unable to obtain a conviction, offered a breakdown of the charges to reckless driving.

RESULT

The Firm’s client accepted the breakdown of the charges.

CASE NO. 06-025087MM10A – Treatment in lieu of jail

The Firm’s client was facing a mandatory jail sentence.

RESULT

The Firm’s client was permitted to receive treatment as opposed to serving a mandatory jail sentence.

CASE NO. 06-002688MM10A – Charges dismissed

On the day of trial, the state attorney dismissed all charges pending against the Firm’s client believing that they would be unable to obtain a conviction before a jury.

RESULT

No further action was taken against the Firm’s client.

Case No. 06-022666CF10A – Felony counts dismissed

The Firm’s client was charged with battery upon a law enforcement officer when said arresting officer alleged that the Firm’s client had attempted to kick him while being arrested and lunged at his groin area.

RESULT

After a thorough investigation of all facts in the case the State Attorney’s Office agreed to dismiss the felony count against the Firm’s client believing they would not succeed on a conviction if the case proceeded to trial.

CASE NO. 06-004396CF10A – All counts dismissed

Upon exceeding the allotted time whereby the state must bring a Defendant to trial, this Firm filed an appropriate notice of expiration of speedy trial forcing the state to proceed to jury trial within ten days of the notice. Being unprepared and unable to procure witnesses in time, the assistant state attorney had no choice but to dismiss all charges against the Firm’s client.

RESULT

No additional action was ever taken.

CASE NO. 06-07871MM10A – Dismissed

Defendant was arrested following an accident whereby it was alleged that the Firm’s client, while traveling at a high rate of speed, veered off the road, went through hedges and into two parked cars at the front of a residence.

A motion to suppress was filed by this office alleging that the Firm’s client was not under arrest at the time the request to test his blood was made, and therefore inadmissible as a matter of law. After hearing all of the evidence and reviewing the defense motion to suppress, the court entered an order suppressing any chemical evidence performed on the Defendant, rendering the state unable to proceed in good faith with trial.

RESULT

The State Attorney’s Office dismissed all charges pending against the Firm’s client.

CASE NO. 06-010823MM10A – Charges dismissed

The State Attorney’s Office dismissed all charges against the Firm’s client after completion of the discovery process and setting case for jury trial. Believing that they did not have enough evidence to secure a conviction against the Firm’s client, charges were voluntarily dismissed.

CASE NO.: 06-024028MM10A – Minimum Jail Sentence Avoided

CASE NO.: 06-014805CF10A – Declined Prosecution

CASE NO.: 92-026090MM10A - The Charges Were Reduced

State attorney voluntarily agreed to reduce the charge to reckless driving.

CASE NO.: 06-002574MM10A – Not guilty

Defendant was charged with domestic battery. Facts: The defendant, a Russian immigrant, was arrested for domestic battery after her husband arrived at a police station with bite marks and scratches on his body. He explained to officers that his wife became angry at him while he was working in his home study and began pounding him with closed fists about his body, scratching and biting his arms. The victim proceeded to explain that he could not pull away from his wife out of fear that his flesh would tear as she was biting him. Photographs were taken of the injuries and admitted into evidence at trial.

Defense: Defendant argued at trial that she did, in fact, become angry at her husband to the point of kicking a door open in the home study. The victim’s response was to order her out of the study and attempt to eject her by grabbing her arms and shoulders, prompting the use of force by the firm’s client by punching, scratching and biting her husband.

Over the course of three days, evidence was introduced by law enforcement officers, the victim, the defendant’s doctors, and private investigators.

RESULT

After deliberating less than ten minutes, the Jury returned with a Not Guilty verdict. Two alternate jurors had been chosen to sit at trial in addition to the six standard jurors. When questioned as to what their verdict would have been, the two alternate jurors agreed emphatically with the not guilty verdict on behalf of the defense.

CASE NO.: 06-015912MM10A – Case declined

After contacting the State Attorney’s office William Moore indicated severe deficiencies in the State’s case, as well as the violation of the client’s constitutional rights, the State Attorney’s office declined filing any action against the Firm’s client.

CASE NO. 05-23805MM10B – Dismissal of all charges

The State Attorney’s Office voluntarily agreed to dismiss all charges against the Firm’s client at the completion of the discovery process. The State Attorney’s Office believed that they did not have a good faith basis in which to proceed to trial and obtain a conviction.

CASE NO.: 04-022533MM10A - Charges broken down

Defendant was found passed out behind the wheel of his pick-up truck at a green light with the doors locked and the engine running. Law enforcement officers surrounded the vehicle and ordered the Firm’s client out of his car and proceeded to conduct an investigation.

Maintaining his innocence, Defendant demanded a trial on the merits. The State responded by breaking down the charges to Reckless Driving, believing that they would not succeed in a conviction.

RESULT

Client not convicted.

CASE NO.: 05-023805MM10B – Case dismissed

Upon arrest, Defendant was found to have possessed marijuana which was taken into evidence and tested by the BSO Crime Lab. The State Attorney’s Office voluntarily agreed to dismiss this Count resulting in a favorable resolution to our client.

CASE NO.: 05-016941CF10A - Case dismissed

Defendant was observed operating a vehicle with one tail light inoperable; law enforcement pulled him over and conducted a criminal investigation. Upon researching all of the facts and circumstances, it was determined that the Firm’s client was driving a car that had a standard three tail lamps, two of which were working properly and in compliance with the Statute. As Florida law requires two operable tail lamps, the stop of Defendant’s vehicle was illegal and all evidence obtained as a result of the illegal stop was suppressed and therefore unusable by the State Attorney’s Office.

RESULT

With no evidence and unable to proceed, the State Attorney’s Office voluntarily dismissed the charges against the Firm’s client.

CASE NO.: 06-010823MM10A - Case dismissed

Defendant was charged in Misdemeanor Court, despite the State being unable to prove the crime charged.

RESULT

Upon demanding a trial on the merits, the State Attorney’s Office was forced to dismiss the pending charges. Client not convicted.

CASE NO.: 06-CT037871AXX - Case dismissed

Defendant was arrested after being found unconscious behind the wheel of his automobile.

RESULT

The State Attorney’s Office declined pursuing aggravated charges.

CASE NO.: 06-004136MM10A – Dismissed.

Arrest was for illegal turn and near accident with a Deputy’s patrol car. Defense Asserted

Order was entered suppressing all evidence following the illegal stop.

RESULT

With no evidence to proceed, the State dismissed all charges against our Firm’s client.

CASE NO.: 06-007871MM10A - Case dismissed

Defendant lost control of his vehicle. Law enforcement believed that our client was under the influence of controlled substances. Formal charges were filed seeking a conviction on the evidence obtained on the night of arrest. The State offered a conviction and one year of probation in an effort to resolve this case. Client refused, and a motion to suppress was filed alleging that the blood evidence collected by investigators on the night of the arrest was obtained illegally.

RESULT

The Judge found in favor of our client. The inability to use the very damaging blood alcohol evidence against our client rendered the State unable to proceed with charges, which were dismissed.

CASE NO.: 06-004815TCA04 – Charges broken down

Charges were broken down to reckless driving after the defense presented witnesses that were willing to testify the client was not driving the automobile he was sitting in with engine running.

RESULT

Reckless driving.

CASE NO.: 06-004815TCA04 - Driving while license suspended

Our client was charged with driving an automobile with a suspended license.

RESULT

The State agreed to dismiss all counts and broke the initial charge down to reckless driving.

CASE NO.: 05-016941CF10A – Dismissed

The basis for the stop was a burned out tail lamp. Under Florida Law a vehicle must be equipped with at least two operable tail lamps. As the vehicle driven in this matter was equipped with three tail lamps, the vehicle was in compliance with Florida traffic statues. A motion to suppress was filed and it was argued that since the vehicle in question was in compliance, the law enforcement officer had violated the Defendant’s constitutional rights in pulling him over without a valid reason. After reviewing the evidence presented by the State, the Judge ordered that the officer’s stop of the vehicle was without probable cause and in violation of the Defendant’s rights. Consequently, all evidence was suppressed. The State filed a notice of appeal, which was later withdrawn.

RESULT

The State voluntarily dismissed all charges against the Defendant.

CASE NO.: 05-015085MM10A – Dismissed

Unable to produce witnesses necessary to prove the case, the state attorney voluntarily dismissed the charges.

CASE NO.: 04-022533MM10A – Charges broken down

Our client was discovered asleep behind the wheel of his automobile by law enforcement officers.

RESULT

After almost two years the State agreed to break the charge down to reckless driving because they could not produce the technician who administered the test at an adjudicatory hearing.

CASE NO.: CRC 0432128CFAES – Felony counts dismissed

The client refused to accept a plea offer by the State and demanded a trial by jury.

RESULT

When presented with evidence of the Defendant’s innocence, the State voluntary dismissed both felony counts in exchange for a plea to a misdemeanor count.

CASE NO. 04025247MM10A – Charges reduced

Client was arrested for swerving across lanes and driving with his high-beams on.

William Moore learned that one of the officers participating in the investigation had previously been untruthful in his reporting of an incident involving another officer. Attorney Moore additionally alleged in a motion to suppress that the stopping officer’s reason for pulling over his client’s car was illegal.

RESULT

After defense counsel filed a motion to suppress, the prosecutor agreed to break the case down to reckless driving.

CASE NO. 04019346MM10A – Dismissed

The motion to suppress alleged that the stop and detention of the client just prior to his arrest was without probable cause and otherwise illegal. After the State’s failure to produce law enforcement officers involved in the arrest on three separate occasions, the Court granted the motion without hearing any evidence.

RESULT

The State voluntarily dismissed the charges. The State filed a notice of appeal which was later withdrawn.

CASE NO. 006504MM10A - Dismissed

Despite the client having crashed into a guard rail on interstate I-595 in front of an off-duty police officer at 4:00 a.m., our office filed an appropriate motion to suppress any and all evidence alleging that the eyewitness testimony afforded by law enforcement was not creditable. After presenting photographic evidence of damage to the vehicle which conflicted with that of the officer’s testimony, the Court suppressed all evidence which rendered the State unable to proceed.

RESULT

The State voluntarily dismissed the charges.

CASE NO.05002246MM10A - Reduced to reckless driving

Upon learning of a lack of evidence on the State’s part, a trial by jury was demanded when the State refused to make an offer that was acceptable.

RESULT

Just prior to picking a potential jury, the State voluntarily agreed to break the charge down reckless driving.

CASE NO. 0406666MM10A - Reduced to reckless driving

Upon an offering by the State of the lowest permissible sentence, our client rejected it and a trial by jury was demanded.

RESULT

Faced with presenting the case to a jury, the State broke down the charge to reckless driving.

CASE NO. TT04000397LW397 - Reduced to reckless driving

Client was stopped after running a red light which he claimed he did due to the occupant of the vehicle behind him urging him to go faster. An appropriate motion to suppress was filed to exclude any observations of impairment alleged by officers in addition to all statements made.

RESULT

Unable to defend the motion on the date of the schedule hearing and denied additional time to prepare by the presiding judge, the case was voluntarily broken down to reckless driving.

CASE NO. 04-011658MM10A - Reduced to reckless driving

Law enforcement officers found client asleep in his vehicle with a bottle of liquor by his side in a mall parking lot. When officers made contact with him, the client claimed that he was a law enforcement officer and became argumentative with police. Upon investigating the case, it was determined that a motion to suppress the stop, detention, and arrest of the Firm’s client was appropriate, and William Moore requested that any observations or statements be excluded from State’s evidence.

RESULT

Believing that he would be unsuccessful in eventually obtaining a conviction in the matter, the prosecuting attorney agreed to break down the charge to reckless driving.

CASE NO. 04-021260MM10A - Reduced to reckless driving

After a thorough case review it was determined that the stop of Defendant’s vehicle was without probable cause and an appropriate motion to Suppress was filed seeking the exclusion of any and all evidence obtained from the illegal police activity.

RESULT

When faced with defending said Motion to Suppress, the State Attorney’s office broke the charge down to reckless driving.

CASE NO.04006600MM10A - Reduced to reckless driving

Client was unable to accept the State’s offer of 90 days in Jail when faced with his fourth charge. In an effort to reduce the State Attorney’s overwhelming amount of evidence, an appropriate motion to suppress (the stop of the vehicle) was filed.

RESULT

Upon being caught off guard and unable to defend this motion the State Attorney offered to break the charge down to reckless driving without any jail time.

CASE NO. 05-013678MM10A - Judgment of acquittal

Following the State’s refusal to dismiss the charges against the Firm’s client, a trial by Judge was demanded. After the presentation of the prosecuting attorney’s case in chief, an appropriate ore tenus motion was submitted, alleging that the state had failed entirely to prove even a prima facia case.

RESULT

The court agreed with the Firm’s ore tenus motion and entered a judgment of acquittal in our client’s favor.

CASE NO. 05005397CF10A - Dismissed

The Prosecuting Attorney failed to break down client’s case or convey a reasonable offer. William Moore subsequently filed a motion to suppress all evidence alleging that the stop and detention of the Firm’s client was illegal due to the fact that law enforcement officers, through an overwhelming show of force, stopped and detained him without probable cause.

RESULT

Mr. Moore’s motion was granted and all evidence obtained from said illegal stop was suppressed. Having no evidence with which the State could in good faith seek a conviction, the prosecuting attorney voluntarily dismissed the case.

CASE NO. 05005396CF10A - Dismissed

After the prosecuting attorney failed to break down the charge or offer any acceptable plea to the Firm’s client, William Moore filed a motion to suppress all evidence. The motion alleged that all evidence obtained by law enforcement was the result of an illegal stop and detention. The court agreed.

RESULT

Having no evidence available whereby the State could in good faith seek a conviction, the prosecuting attorney voluntarily dismissed the charges.

CASE NO. 02000636CF10A - Not guilty

After the prosecuting attorney failed to break down the charge or offer any acceptable plea other than incarceration, William Moore demanded a trial by jury on the merits of the case. During the presentation of the prosecutor’s case, William Moore successfully moved to exclude testimony identifying the Defendant, alleging that the prosecutor in the case had acted improperly in preparing his witnesses to testify against his client.

RESULT

With a lack of any credible identification witnesses, after short deliberations, the jury returned a “not guilty” verdict.

CASE NO. 0014908CF10A - Not guilty

William Moore demanded a jury trial after the prosecuting attorney refused to break down or dismiss the charges against his client which carried a sentence punishable by “life in prison.” During the presentation of the prosecutor’s case in chief, William Moore successfully objected to damaging facts being brought into evidence.

RESULT

After the presentation of the prosecutor’s case in chief, William Moore presented evidence in defense of his client and ultimately convinced the jury to hand down a “not guilty” verdict and acquit his client of the crime charged.

CASE NO. 001721CF10A - Not guilty

The Firm’s client, standing on his plea of not guilty, felt it was his best interest to proceed to trial on the merits of his case.

RESULT

At the close of all evidence presented in his defense by William Moore, the Jury returned with a verdict of “not guilty.”

CASE NO. 009374CF10A - Not guilty

In response to the State Attorney’s failure to convey a plea offer that was acceptable to the Defendant, William Moore demanded a trial by jury, excluded evidence presented by the State, and presented evidence in defense of his client.

RESULT

After a short deliberation the Jury returned with a “not guilty” verdict on all counts.

CASE NO. J.R. (Juvenile Record Sealed) - Dismissed

Upon failed negotiations with the State Attorney’s office whereby no acceptable breakdown or plea offer was conveyed to the Firm’s client, a request for trial by Judge was entered. William Moore made several motions alleging that it would be unethical and illegal for the State to proceed with the limited evidence they had in their possession.

RESULT

In response and prior to the Judge’s ruling the State voluntarily dismissed the charges.

CASE NO. 007392CF10A - Not guilty

The client, standing on his innocence and refusing to accept the offer of incarceration by the State, requested that William Moore proceed to trial on the merits of his case.

RESULT

At the close of all evidence presented by William Moore in his client’s defense, the jury rendered a not guilty verdict on all counts.

CASE NO. 00009515CF10A - Not guilty

Rejecting the offer of incarceration from the prosecuting attorney, the client proceeded to trial on the merits of his case, upon the advice of William Moore.

RESULT

After the close of all evidence presented by William Moore, the jury returned with a not guilty verdict on all counts.

CASE NO. 00004222CF10A - Not guilty

After a motion to suppress, certain evidence was excluded from the trial by the court, thereby crippling the State’s case in chief. After considering all of the State’s evidence and the defense presented by William Moore, the jury found the Defendant not guilty of the crime charged.

CASE NO. 00001785CF10A - Not guilty

Rejecting the State’s offer of incarceration and at the advice of counsel the client proceeded to trial by jury on the merits of his case. Upon successfully suppressing certain state evidence introduced at trial and upon conclusion of all defense evidence presented by William Moore the jury returned with a not guilty verdict on all counts.

CASE NO. 00003208CF10A - Not guilty

At the advice of counsel, the client rejected a plea offer of incarceration by the State. William Moore demanded a trial by jury, successfully excluded certain State’s evidence during trial and presented evidence in defense of his client.

RESULT

After a short deliberation the jury returned with a not guilty verdict.

CASE NO. 05008334MM10A - Judgment of acquittal

Standing on her innocence and at the advice of William Moore, the Firm’s client proceeded to have a trial by Judge. At the conclusion of the State’s case, William Moore made an appropriate motion alleging that the prosecuting attorney had failed to meet its burden in proving the case and that the court should, as a matter of law, direct a verdict acquitting the Defendant.

RESULT

The Court agreed with defense counsel and entered an appropriate judgment of acquittal.

CASE NO. 03009081CF10A - Dismissed

Despite the State Attorney having overwhelming evidence, through investigation William Moore determined that the State lacked necessary witnesses in proving its case and filed an appropriate demand for speedy trial.

RESULT

Finding themselves caught off guard, the state prosecutor agreed to a voluntary dismissal of the charges against William Moore’s client.

State v. File No. 0413359mm10a - Voluntary dismissal by the Prosecuting Attorney

State v. File No. 05003216cf10a - Voluntary dismissal by the Prosecuting Attorney

State v. File No.03000676cf10a - Voluntary dismissal by the Prosecuting Attorney

State v. File No. M.E.WPB 01 - Voluntary dismissal by the Prosecuting Attorney

State v. File No. 04019629mm10a - Minimum mandatory sentence avoided

State v. File No. - 04019441mm10a - Minimum mandatory sentence avoided

State v. File No. - 0320025cf10a - Minimum mandatory sentence avoided

State v. File No. - 01004448cf10a - Minimum mandatory sentence avoided